We Don’t Do Torture - Especially in Debates
WASHINGTON - Media critics, foreign policy experts and human rights advocates are charging that questions asked by the moderators of the televised debates among U.S. presidential hopefuls have frequently been trivial and designed to produce conflict to boost ratings, while ignoring many of the most pressing issues facing the United States.
Danny Schechter, editor of Mediachannel.org, a media watchdog organisation, told IPS that the failings of the candidate debates “lie with the whole process which focuses on personalities, media mediated discussions, and what I call ‘electotainment’ — stoking conflict, not searching for solutions. Heat, not light.”
His view was echoed by many others who are harshly critical both of moderators for failing to ask a wide range of serious questions and of candidates for failing to raise these questions.
So far, 20 debates of the presidential contenders have been televised. They were sponsored principally by cable television news channels such as CNN, Fox News and MSNBC, and moderated by TV anchors joined by a few print journalists. When the Democratic Party chooses its candidate — the Republicans have already effectively anointed Senator John McCain of Arizona — the two contenders traditionally participate in at least a few televised debates, as do their running mates for vice president.
While important subjects were discussed in the debates — health care, world trade, the economy, education, terrorism — a wide range of other areas were largely ignored. The questions never or rarely raised by primary contest debate moderators include such issues as presidential signing statements, the limits of presidential authority, separation of powers, the role of the courts, warrantless wiretapping, rendition, the Guantanamo detention centre and military commissions, secret CIA prisons, and many other civil liberties and human rights issues.
“It seems as if that there is almost an agreement among all the parties not to deal with these subjects,” Michael Ratner, a law professor at Columbia University and president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, which is defending a number of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, told IPS.
“The Democrats wrongly believe that standing up for rights will make them appear weak on terrorism; the Republicans probably do not want to brag or be responsible for these inhuman and or unconstitutional practices — at least not publicly in a debate. The moderators probably understand this,” he said.
Mary Shaw of Amnesty International USA told IPS, “It is very important that the candidates honestly share their views and intentions regarding these issues… We were blindly led into a war in Iraq. We cannot afford to be blindly led into further atrocities in our name and with our tax dollars.”
Patricia H. Kushlis, who spent more than 25 years as a U.S. foreign service officer and now co-hosts the widely respected foreign affairs blog “WhirledView.typepad.com”, believes these issues “are crucial to the survival of American democracy”.
“If, in the televised debates, the presidential candidates are being let off the hook on these and other crucial national issues, then the fault, in my view, lies foremost with the media representatives and organisations conducting and televising the debates,” she told IPS. “This means, in particular, with the formats chosen, the questions asked, and the ways those questions are framed.”
Many activists and analysts interviewed for this article also blame the media more than the candidates. Patricia Sharpe, an international affairs specialist in politics, public diplomacy and national security and a co-host of “WhirledView”, told IPS, “I can understand why the candidates might not originate such discussions: They are complex and controversial. What’s not easy to understand is why the issues haven’t been forced on the candidates by the interlocutors.”
For some critics, there is more than enough blame to go around. Brian J. Foley, visiting associate professor at the Drexel University College of Law, told IPS, “I blame the commentators, but more I blame the candidates themselves. Why are they running for president if not to right these grievous wrongs, the misdeeds and modus operandi of an abusive president?”
A number of academics also have also been critical of the debates. For example, Edward S. Herman, an emeritus professor at the University Pennsylvania, told IPS, “In a real democracy, substantive issues should be central to election debates, as knowing what candidates stand for on such issues ought to be the key basis on which voters choose.”
“This is especially the case today in an election that follows an administration that has run roughshod over constitutional principles, the famous checks-and-balances system, and the rule of law itself. If these matters, including the use of signing statements that implicitly ignore the legislative will, and the right to engage in torture and hold anybody in prison on executive say-so as an ‘enemy combatant,’ cannot be debated, we are in real trouble. And we are.”
In his column, “Media Matters”, Jamison Foser, noted that there has been only one question about wiretapping, no questions about FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), no questions about rendition, habeas corpus, telecom liability, or the Bush administration’s “rather sceptical view of congressional oversight”.
Instead, he says, most of the questions have trivialised the process. He cites examples such as whether the Constitution should be changed to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger (the Austrian-born governor of California) to be president, what costumes the candidates would be wearing for Halloween, and whether former Democratic candidate Congressman Dennis Kucinich had seen a UFO (Unidentified Flying Object).
Foser says, “It’s easy to imagine one excuse some journalists will offer for ignoring these matters: The American people just don’t care about habeas corpus and wiretapping. They care about ‘likeability’ and whether they’d enjoy having a candidate ‘in their living room’ for the next four years and whether candidates are ‘comfortable in their own skin’. They just don’t care about things like the Constitution. That’s bunk. Pure bunk, as recent polls demonstrate.”
He cited a poll conducted for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in which 61 percent of the U.S. public said they think the U.S. government should have to get a warrant before wiretapping conversations between citizens and people in other countries, and majorities of voters want the next president to restore habeas corpus, close Guantanamo Bay, not allow the president alone to determine who is an enemy combatant, and end torture as U.S. policy.
As Michael Ratner pointed out, “On occasion, a candidate has something to say regarding a couple of these subjects, but only briefly. If you asked almost anyone who has listened to these debates, they would be hard pressed to articulate a candidate’s position on these topics. It is all very grim and not a strong signal that we will see a more sane policy soon.”
© 2008 Inter Press Service
One other thing they never ask about is the health of the free press and whether any viewer or reader should any longer have confidence in the credibility of a report labeled “news.”
Isn’t it ironic that issues many posters here at CD were discussing months ago are suddenly appearing now? “Journalists have been asking easy questions.” No s##t. Maybe they are complicit? Duh!!
Anytime you hear that word “especially” the odds are pretty god that somebody is lying. It is as if they are admitting “OK I admit what I just said is generally not true but here is an instance in which it really is true”.
Other subjects that are verboten in the electo-tainment “debates”:
- Is the concept of “preemptive war” intrinsically criminal?
- What is a realistic estimate of Iraqi civilian casualties?
- Was the Iraq War fought for control of oil?
- Impeachment
- If the US invades Iraq based on claims of “WMD,” and there proves to be no WMD, is it an acceptable excuse, to merely say, “Oh, we apparently had flawed intelligence”; and to continue the occupation as though this little “flaw” made no practical difference?
- Are the opinions of Iraqis about the occupation irrelevant to whether the US continues the occupation?
- Telecom immunity
- What conclusions should be drawn from the publicly-acknowledged fact that the NSA began its spying operations before 9-11, considering that “terrorism” is used as the pretext for these operations?
I don’t believe polls that say people want habeas corpus restored because most people don’t know what it is. And they don’t care about it unless they themselves are in prison without charge. Ditto for torture.
I agree militantliberal - you summed up the average American - ignorant and arrogant. “I don’t know and I don’t care.”
They should start knowing and caring soon, because many things are affecting them and their families directly now under this misministration.
Rather than hear about how clueless the average American is Those of us Americans who do have a clue would like to hear more from non-Americans here who let us know what their own countries are doing to encourage change in the USA.
The American Revolution was won because our forefathers made sure that the people of England knew that we were not against them but only the rule of King George…. this got us support from France and the people in many nations.
How about useful suggestions if you really want change for a change.
I think viewers would be fascinated by honest answers about torture from the candidates and that would boost ratings. My guess is that with the race is so close that neither candidate wants to risk being cast as “soft on terrorism” so they are quite happy not to answer questions about torture. Thus they avoid being drawn into the false “protecting Americans” versus “civil liberties” caricature of the “debate”. In reality there would be greater security if America showed its better self and stopped torturing people (including children). http://blip.tv/file/728147
“Those of us Americans who do have a clue would like to hear more from non-Americans here who let us know what their own countries are doing to encourage change in the USA.”
Mostly this has consisted of voting anyone closely associated with GW Bush out at the soonest available electoral opportunity - most notably in Spain and Australia. In the UK we haven’t done so well, but Blair finally had to go when it became obvious he was a liability rather than an asset to his party.
Electotainment is a great word. Spot on.
As for these “moderators,” not only are they under the thumbs of their bosses and pretty much programmed to behave the way they do, they are just dumb stoned stupid when it comes to any issue of substance.
we’ve been on a slippery slope since jfk debated nixon. those debates were produced and moderated by the league of women voters, a pointedly non-partisan organization, and revealed more about the candidates than one of them might have wished. the lesson was taken to heart.
fast-forward to today, when one or another of rupert murdoch’s screaming heads sets the table and we passively graze.
these “debates” aren’t entertainment. they’re job interviews for the most critical gig on the planet, and we need someone to raise questions that will figure in our lives and those of future generations. haven’t we seen enough stage managing from the likes of tim russert and wolf blitzer to call BS on the whole rigged game?
re RichM 10:49am
great questions, especially the last one.
One reason democrats need to win this election is so we can laugh at the democrats. So they can stop kidding themselves. Clinton and Obama voters ought to prepare themselves for the biggest dissappointment ever; and i’ll be right there to laught at them. Under a Clinton or Obama admin.
1-They will remain an occupying force in Iraq.
2-They will continue to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollar per month on this war; ie to fund war profiteers as well.
3-They will continue torture and rendition; here and abroad.
4-They will continue to spy on & harass US Citizens.
5-They will continue to track and monitor American citizens.
6-They will continue to approve big government handouts/earmarks to major corperate donors and financiers.
7-They will keep the same FED Chairmen and continue all his policies.
8-They will continue anti-democractic and totalitarian methods such as Free Speech Zones, Signing Statements, Vague Executive Orders.
9-They will continue the imperialistic foreign policies, along with the incindiery rhetoric against any nation who disagrees (Venezuela for instance).
10- They might actually start another war for profits versus Iran or Venezuela.
11- They will continue to do nothing to make the country Energy Independent (Solar Energy, alternative energy).
We can go on. They’re both beholden to the corperations and financiers who fund them, and who’ve already bought them. Watch though, Obama or Hillay will get elected and despite all of the above atrocities still occuring, Democrats will insist “Give it time, things are getting better.” “Well at least it’s not under Bush.” “Bush really ran this country into the ground.” Kind of reminds you of the talking points from the right all these 8 years.
Somebody needs to ask Hillbillary and Obama the precise time on January 20, 2009 that they will fire Ben Bernanke.
If they don’t give a straight answer, mastershake’s thesis will be validated.
Let Ralph Debate.
How about a series of McKinney v Nader debates for the Green party nomination? That would be a whole lot better than this crap. Of course, if a corporate media talking head tried to moderate such a debate , their head would explode because so many topics that just can’t be discussed on TV would be up for discussion.
PS … the Clinton record is to keep the Republicans choice for Fed chairperson for their whole term. No change from Republican policy. That’s what they did with Greenspan in the 90’s. That’s the Clinton record, which counts a whole lot more than anything they might say. And with Obama floating in Wall St money, its a pretty sure bet that Wall st gets to pick his Fed chairman as well. If they like Barnake, he stays. If Wall St doesn’t like Barnake, he goes. But the one thing Obama won’t do is to be honest and tell you that up front.
Watching the farce called the “US democratic process” is torture enough.
There’s a reason questions about civil liberties are not discussed. People would realize what they’ve given up in exchange for a trumped up war on terror.
As it stands now people don’t realize they’ve given away EVERYTHING and have gotten NOTHING (but debt and death) in return.
All the cilvil liberties and rights that tens of millions have fought and died for. And you gave them all away to a sociopathic whack-a-doodle con-man named George Bush who scared you into submission.
The longer the Press, Pundit and Politicans can keep the masses in the dark the more they’ll be able to steal.
MASTERSHAKE,
I hope you are wrong I mean I don’t want to have to sing Phil Och’s song about Mississippi and change the words to Here’s To The State of Obama/Clinton.
But just in case you are wrong, I will leave open the option of giving Obama a chance to begin to change that list of issues for the better.
Anybody who is now being painted by the media as a Gay Commie Terrorist can’t be all as bad as you predict but in case you are correct…….
Plan B Hello Switzerland!
No the media aren’t going to let Nader into the discussion—No adults allowed. Just the tame little corporate shills. I would have voted for whichever one happened to ask “Where’s Dennis Kucinich” in any of the big pre-Super Tuesday “debates” from which Kucinich was ruthlessly excluded—for he also was speaking like an adult—but all Obama and Shillary cared about was their own “gain” in attention and to hell with the concept of genuine inclusive discussion along the way. So to hell with the both of them—this tells me all I need to know about their “real values” and how the lack of them will play out, whomever the prostitute-media declare is the winner.
To some it sounds like Dennis is one of your heros….
He is a loyal Dem. You don’t like his judgement very much though do You?
You want Dennis to join the Greens and then he will really be cool!
Dennis is your man but you will never support who he supports.
Now who is your Man?
COMarc - just a short clarification, Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez are running as Independents, not Greens. It’s a common misconception which is often reported as true in the media, but it just ain’t so.
RichM has good questions, while hazmat gets to the basic answer about why we get electotainment rather than substance in the presidential candidate debates.
To RichM’s list, I would add:
- What would be your policy regarding public release of National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs)? Do you feel there is a risk of politicizing that process if they are made public?
- What would be your policy regarding field generals such as General Patreus testifying before Congress and evaluating the progress of their own counterinsurgency plans? Do you feel there is a risk in drawing active duty military leaders too much into partisan politics?
- What should be the long term role of military contractors like Blackwater being deployed in combat areas overseas, or taking over functions like supply and transport that the US military used to handle directly for itself?
- Would you personally review all of the classified materials that were withheld from Congress and from the 911 Commission about the WTC attacks, and declassify and release to the public any such materials that you thought had been wrongfully withheld?
Hazmat is correct that with the removal of the League of Women Voters as candidate debate sponsors, there is an open invitation for ego-driven “gotcha” journalism on the one hand, but also for the candidates themselves to restrict the scope of debate by declaring certain subjects off limits.
For instance, in the most recent Democratic debate, Tim Russert demanded “Yes or No” answers from both Hillary and Barack on whether each would “junk NAFTA”, and whether each would promise to have the troops out of Iraq “by the end of 2009.”
Although I thought this confrontational approach did produce illuminating responses, I admit to feeling a bit uncomfortable about having media types manipulate an artificial debate setting to force candidates to accept (or reject) important public policy positions that the candidates themselves might prefer to leave vague. How confident do you feel, for example, about Hillary Clinton’s eventual answer to the Iraq withdrawal 2009 deadline question when it was squeezed out in this format (what the pundits later jovially characterized as “reeling her into the boat like a big marlin”)?
The classic flip side of the ouster of the League of Women Voters as the asker of the questions was the 2004 Presidential debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry. The first debate was an hour and a half prime time devoted solely to national security, military and foreign policy issues.
The Geneva Conventions were never mentioned. The word torture was never uttered. Despite George Bush’s personal role in creating the concept of “enemy combatants” that were neither fish nor fowl, soldiers nor criminal suspects, and therefore subject to what Bush later authorized to happen at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Gitmo, the historic moment passed with nary a mention of the abusive treatment of thousands of persons detained indefinitely in US military prison custody worldwide.
It is of course self-evident why George Bush might be reluctant to discuss his torture policies. But why the Kerry campaign and the NPR moderator of that 2004 debate gave Little George a gracious gentlemen’s pass remains a complete mystery to me to this day. It had something to do with the debate ground rules, things agreed to between the two major political parties and the American media, all behind the scenes.
Whatever.
The moment passed, the page was turned, and the opportunity for affixing political accountability for the Bush administration’s decision to gut the Geneva Convention POW torture prohibitions was lost, and probably lost forever.
Bill from Saginaw
Which is worse– purchasing a $4,000 hooker
(Eliot Spitzer) or puffing up somebody with water until he looks like a toad and then jumping on him with both feet to make room for more water (the Bush, Mukasey and
McCain cockroaches).
Both activities demonstrate an astonishing lack of imagination; but, one is worse than the other.
Oh yes we do torture in debates, the very debates themselves are tantamount to torture as is detailed througout this article. I don’t mean to trivialize the constitutional, moral and foreign policy problems with the US employing torture.
Ethel Rosenberg and her husband were killed in the Electric Chair for giving some secrets to Russai. When the Red Chinese who were killing our men during the Korean War, failed to raise a missle of the ground as they did not have the know-how, Bill Clinton came to their rescue and gave them the Trick. The Red Chinese have been pouring money into the Clinton Ambitions.
What is the difference between what Clinton did and the Rosenbergs? During WWII the Clintons could have been charged with Treason.
No candidate has raised the issue of the Tens of Millions of Dollars that Bill Clinton is getting from Dubai, and the Saudi Kingdom..
Why are the Clintons being protected?
The Press is complicit by their silence.
I have more tinker-toys up my ass than all these ‘candidates’ have substance in their debates.
“moderated by TV anchors joined by a few print journalists.”
good observation - the intellectual integrity of the moderator.
how many of the moderators are more concerned with their hair or their post debate ratings than they are about the issues ?
the debates in the general election should be re framed and sponsored by independent institutions like the league of women voters or the center for public integrity. we can contact the DNC and our respective reps and encourage them to change the process (debate structure/sponsorship) before the presidential debates in the fall.
obviously the questions and comments in the debates are presented for maximum entertainment value. russert’s question to obama about his renunciation of louis farrakhan, while mentioning farrakhan’s comment about judaism being a gutter religion, highlighted this point for me. (talk about a double play 1. are you moslem? and then 2. are you anti-semitic?). i would have preferred a question about israels latest criminal/genocidal behavior in palestine.
COMarc March 11th, 2008 1:51 pm
nader/mckinney debates?- what about random paired debates, televised on cspan, sponsored by commondreams and FAIR, over a duration of 2 days, over a series of 10 different subjects (everyone debates 10 times) between all the ‘lower tier candidates” including: Róger Calero/Socialist Workers Party - Brian Moore/Socialist Party USA - Gene Amondson†/Prohibition Party - the nominee of the Libertarian Party - and the nominee of the constitution party in addition to mckinney (or swift) and nader.
the american public can barely identify prominent republicans and democrats (even w/ their massive war chests) christopher dodd who? mitt romney remember mitt- personally i would love to hear issues framed in very clear ideological context, for example a socialist debating a libertarian about the relevance of social programs/taxes in the context of the general good/vs individualism. wow. i’d watch that podcast over and over just for it’s entertainment value, but i doubt the average american would understand or see it’s humor. until the people are capable of focusing for an hour on socially relevant questions like FISA, i doubt we will see change…
…peace…..
Well, what’s new? Since the Iraq war had started I have given up reading/following the mainstream media. To me they are the propaganda organ of the establishment.
1 in 3 Americans is ok with torture, war, nuclear bomb use, incarceration without trial, renditions, wiretapping, and government secrecy. Another 1 in 3 could change his mind really quickly. I figure 1 in 3 Americans is half-way reasonable. One reasonable, one on the fence, one lunatic. That is the US. The one on the fence chooses the President and congress.
If it has to do with sex, go after him. If it has to do with killing, leave him alone. Killing is good, sex outside marriage is bad. Even some sex in marriage is bad. Killing is good as long as it isn’t embryos.
The Bush administration has expanded its use, but the legally dubious, inhumane practice of extraordinary rendition as a means of outsourcing torture was begun by Bill Clinton. It is kidnapping and forced disppearance when practiced by governments we don’t like, but it’s part of the War on Terror when we do it. No one in the media is pointing out Clinton’s role or asking Hillary Clinton, who is running largely on her husband’s record, about it. But they should be.
We Don’t Do Torture - Especially in Debates
Ahem, the debates are themselves a kind of torture to watch. Phony questions by phony journalist with phony answers.
If anyone goes near the truth, be it reporters or candidates, it could be the end of their career.
Obama is the only major candidate who has been consistent and principled on the torture issue. From the San Francisco Chronicle today:
“Sen. Barack Obama is accusing Democratic presidential rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of waffling on the issue of torture, citing her past willingness to allow a president to order brutal interrogation methods to save American lives . . . ‘We need a commander-in-chief who has never wavered on whether or not it is acceptable for America to torture, because it is never acceptable,’ Obama said. ‘While I have consistently opposed torture, in the course of this primary campaign Hillary Clinton has flip-flopped from her past position of tolerating torture.’”
The article goes on to explain that Hillary Clinton indeed is currently strongly opposed to torture with no exceptions, having changed from her earlier willingness to have presidents authorize torture under certain circumstances.
However, what is unmentioned in this wire-service report is that one of Hillary Clinton’s leading foreign policy advisers–perhaps THE leading one–who formerly, like Sen. Clinton, believed in legal presidential torture, now says he supports Sen. Clinton in making it entirely illegal — and THEREFORE now advocates that in circumstances in which torture is necessary (according to him), he thinks people in our government should be doing it ILLEGALLY instead.
I.e. no substantive change in what actually happens, from this close advisor of the Sen. Clinton campaign; only the paperwork of formal legal culpability is redefined.
The close foreign policy advisor to Sen. Clinton to whom I refer is Bill Clinton, the ex-president and her husband. He has said he expects to be having a foreign policy role in a Clinton administration.
Here is Sen. Clinton’s close advisor Bill Clinton explaining why necessary torture should be carried out by government operatives illegally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvoFmvcV1ug
Ugh!!!
Given Sen. Clinton’s own history of wavering on this issue, and close advisor Bill’s unrepentant current belief that in certain circumstances torture should be done under a Clinton administration by government operatives illegally … how credible is Sen. Clinton’s recent conversion to the absolutist no-torture position?
UK top cop who led CIA probe found dead
Manchester Police Chief Who Cleared Britain of Helping Secret CIA Flights Is Found Dead
ROB HARRIS
AP News
Mar 11, 2008 13:45 EST
A city police chief who led an investigation into charges that Britain cooperated with secret CIA flights to transport terrorism suspects without formal proceedings has been found dead, his deputy said Tuesday.
Manchester Chief Constable Michael Todd, 50, was found dead in Snowdonia, about 240 miles northwest of London, Deputy Chief Constable Dave Whatton said. He had been missing since going out for a walk Monday during his day off.
Whatton said the body, which was found Tuesday afternoon, had not yet been formally identified but he believed it was Todd.
He said a coroner’s inquest would investigate the cause of death and did not give any further details.
Todd was elected vice president of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales in 2006, according to a biography on his Web site.
The association gave him the task of looking into accusations that Britain allowed the CIA to use the country’s airports to fly terrorism suspects to other countries without any extradition hearings, a clandestine procedure known as “extraordinary rendition.”
riverman101, your comment reads like the label of Dr Bronner’s Peppermint Soap gone bad.
rebelnow March 12th, 2008 1:00 am
thank you. it wasn’t clicking in my brain - at first i thought extended nervous breakdown but the dr bronner’s comparison sums it up. excellent analysis…
from the label on a bottle of dr bronners peppermint soap -
the 22nd moral ABC…
‘”small minds decay! average minds delay! great minds teach all one today! win victory and all stand by you; give it up!!!!all deny you!! remember the ONLY difference between the brave and the coward, the brave has an ideal to fight for such as teaching the moral ABC, that at once unites the human race in ALL-ONE-GOD-FAITH”
apparently we all have our own inspirations…..
….peace……..
Look, surely the American Administration has looked carefully at the methods employed by the Spanish Inquisition. Boy, those Catholic Priests really had the torture scene down pat. What didn’t they explore when it came to inflicting hideous torture on those non-believers isn’t worth knowing.
They read the Bible then, their minds filled with love, designed the most exquisitely painful procedures, ones that caused screams that must’ve reached Heaven!
God is Love. Hallelujah!
www.dangerouscreation.com
claudius March 11th, 2008 10:33 am
Isn’t it ironic that issues many posters here at CD were discussing months ago are suddenly appearing now? “Journalists have been asking easy questions.” No s##t. Maybe they are complicit? Duh!!
thank you . enough said on that. you nailed it!
Turn all the debates over to college, and university students. Then you will get some real real scrutiny. I doubt if any of the candidates, would hold up under the fire. I would pay to watch that.
Should have mentioned, that i am in my sixties.
lizard March 11th, 2008 6:56 pm
1 in 3 Americans is ok with torture, war, nuclear bomb use, incarceration without trial, renditions, wiretapping, and government secrecy. Another 1 in 3 could change his mind really quickly. I figure 1 in 3 Americans is half-way reasonable. One reasonable, one on the fence, one lunatic. That is the US. The one on the fence chooses the President and congress.
Here’s something that I noticed having worked on the last few Presidential campaigns. Whereas alot of our volunteers preferred to preech to the choir in order to make sure all the dems that can vote do vote, I liked a good fight and went to the Repug neighborhoods. And here is what I discovered, Americans are not nice people anymore. They support war, torture, running over people stranded on the side of a highway broken down, pissing on a drowning man and crowds of people cheering while its done. America has become a shit hole. The landscape and its inhabitants. Problem is, its still the best shithole in the world. Anyone else see this thing circling the drain?!!
anyone remember the Clinton v Bush v Perot debates of 92? Remember the town hall debate? The one where the poor black lady asked Bush a question and Bush snapped back “I am not going to apologize to you because I have the means to live a nice life” or something along those lines. well, thats why we dont have real debates anymore. that q&a lost Bush the election, that was actually just deserts for Bush, that was his willie horton. But thats why all debates are filled with corporate republicans in the audiences and are corporate sponsored and scripted. what you need is a candidate with enough guts to do what Robin Williams did in Man of the Year, and break the rules of the debate…..
RICH M: I found your post powerful, and like Mastershake, would also like to see these types of questions expanded into domestic policy, primarily around the substance of what passes for fiscal priorities, i.e. defense spending stealing the $ from every other viable investment in infrastructure, education, etc. Also, as per Nader’s zone of inquiry, there should be pointed questions regarding the relaxing of such agencies as EPA and FDA, and the now slipping matter of public safety.
JOSEPH PAQUET: IF you read Louis Nizer’s book, “The Implosion Conspiracy” you’d see that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were framed. They were to their era what a lot of these unfortuate souls drift-netted into the apparatus of the “war on terror” are to today’s pursuers of the abstraction of evil.
“…..WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS…”
AND AGAIN I SAY..TO ALL OF YOU WHO WILL PAY IN APRIL…WHY? WHY ARE YOU PAYING FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF LIBERTY? THE ILLEGAL WAR, THE JUDGES WHO’S SALLERIES YOU PAY WHO RUBBER STAMP THESE ABUSES…WHY?
NOW, BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIONS, WITH INCOMING POWER BROKERS..NOW IS THE TIME FOR A “GENERAL TAX STRIKE”..AFTER ALL, WE ARE A “UNION” OF TAX PAYERS..MAKING ALL THEIR EVIL SHIT POSSIBLE..(WELL YOU ARE..I’M NOT..NOT THIS YEAR..AND NOT UNTIL THEY LISTEN..)SO STRIKE FOLKS…WHAT IF 100 MILLION PEOPLE ACTUALLY GREW A REAL BACKBONE AND SAID…FOR REAL..NOT IN OUR NAMES!..NOT WITH MY MONEY!..IT IS TIME…SHOW THEM WHERE THE POWER LAY..WITH THE PEOPLE WHO FOOT THE BILL..YOU ARE PICKING UP THE CHECK FOR THE MOST EVIL BREED OF “GOVERNMENT” POSSIBLY IN THE HISTORY OF MAN..(TECHNOLOGY AND APATHY HAS BROUGHT US TO A NEW LEVEL OF EVIL)
IT IS TIME FOR SOME ACTUAL “SACRIFICE” ON ALL OF OUR PARTS..SOME ACTUAL “RISK”..AND HOW LUCKY ARE WE THAT WE CAN SIMPLY CHOOSE “NOT TO PAY” AS A SERIOUS…VERY SERIOUS…FORM OF REVOLT…MOST PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD HAVE TO TAKE UP ARMS..ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS “NOT DECLARE”
PLEASE PEOPLE..IT IS TIME..THE ONLY POWER WE HAVE LEFT, IS THE “POWER OF THE PURSE” YOU ARE PAYING FOR THESE ACTIVITIES…PERIOD! YOU ARE PAYING THE SALLERIES OF BLACKWATER MERCENARIES WHO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE..(NOTE:AND WHERE IS THE LEGISLATION STATING THAT FORMER BLACKWATER AND OTHER KILLERS CANNOT COME “HOME” AND JOIN LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES? THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM..OH YEAH..AND YOU’LL BE PAYING FOR THAT TOO..)
THE “LOYALIST” FORCES, THE CLERKS AND LITTLE ZEALOTS THAT MAKE UP THE JOINT TERRORISM TASK FORCES..THE LITTLE THUG-RUNTS WHO CAN’T EVEN QUOTE STATISTICS CORRECTLY..BUT SIMPLY GO ON..”FAITH” THAT THEY ARE “RIGHT” AND THAT “CIVIL RIGHTS SHOULD BE SACRIFICED..” TO SOME GREATER GOOD WHICH WHEN ASKED THEY REALLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT..AS IT DOES NOT EXIST…YOU ARE PAYING THEIR SALLERIES, PAYING FOR THE EQUIPMENT THAT SPIES ON YOUR EMAILS AND THE LITTLE WEASELS HIDING IN BASEMENTS READING YOUR EMAILS..(NOTE: WHERE ARE THE “HACKERS”? WHERE IS THE EMAIL WORM THAT ADDS “INFLAMATORY WORDS” TO EMAILS..SO WE ALL BECOME..’SUSPECTS..” WHICH WE ARE ANYWAY..SEE THE MILITARY COMMISIIONS ACT TO SEE THE “DEFINITION” OF “ENEMY COMBATANT”…GUESS WHAT..IT’S YOU!)
SO THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY..IF WE EVER WANT OUR POWER BACK..ACTUAL REPRESENTATION..A GENERAL TAX STRIKE IS THE ONLY WAY THAT WILL EVER HAPPEN..SO DO NOT PAY UNTIL THEY LISTEN..YOU ARE THE MAJORITY..AND YOU ARE PAYING TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROCESS…NICE!